Just now I noticed, and subsequently read, a response by danah boyd on her blog to the critics of her recent essay that talks about class divisions that can be viewed by observing Myspace and Facebook. I was actually looking forward to reading this for a while, as the post stirred up a lot of interest and criticism and I wanted to see what she would say. The response was rather long but I still find that some of my personal questions were left unanswered. Here is what I thought in general:

First, Boyd goes into detail about the difference between her academic research papers and her blog, describing how she writes her blog in a much looser way and that therefor the post should have not been interpreted as an actual research study. She talks about the idea of the death of the author and how "the weird thing about blogging is that the author is pretty darn present. I'm here." Personally, I think its true that many personal blogs, and blogs in general, are meant to serve as a way to present and discuss ideas, rather then as a formal declaration of research. The problem is, when you become a well-respected voice in a particular field, people want to hear what you have to say. Perhaps that means that you are held to a higher standard, even as far as your writings on your blog. It doesn't mean that people were correct to represent this post as anything more then ideas and thoughts, but people are morons, its just a basic fact of life. If you put it out there and people consider you an important voice in a particular field, thats what will happen.

She also seemed surprised to see that so many people took the time to respond to her post. I don't see why this should be so surprising. There have been 1000s of blog posts in recent months concerning Facebook and the comparison's between it and MySpace, ranging from which site is better to predictions about their directions in the future. Even though all of this attention may seem unnecessary and ridiculous to some, it is the topic of the moment. People are interested because Facebook was the first social networking site positioned to rival MySpace that decided to open their platform so dramatically. Whether you think this is revolutionary or not, it did change the game, evidenced by every site from LinkedIn to the new Pownce to MySpace itself announcing similar strategies. People wanted to write it about and discuss it, and most of the posts were stupid. Boyd's was one of the few I have read that discusses something that is actually thought provoking, which is why it received so much attention. Plus, whenever you talk about class divisions people's ears perk up, thats just the nature of the beast.

I did fully respect her section discussing the fact that she had been referring to teenagers and how she was surprised that people refuted her opinions by talking about themselves or their friends. Valid point. But I think what some people were referring to regarding twenty somethings etc could apply to teenagers as well. My sister, for instance, is thirteen and lived on myspace until I invited her to facebook (she is white, quite mainstream in terms of her interests, middle class, living in suburban NY and not gay...just to provide the background). Although Facebook initially stirred her interest, she is still very much on myspace. Her friends on each are the same, minus the bands of course and those friends who are just not interested in social networking enough to join another site (yes there are still some of those under 18). She's thirteen and really only associates, as I imagine many teenagers do, particularly those who live in the suburbs, with people she goes to school with or who live in close proximity. Her picture is usually the same on each. And sure she communicates differently, on Facebook she throws sheep at people while on Myspace she sends out silly question and answer bulletins every day. If anything her Facebook is now more cluttered with stuff then her Myspace, which she had a friend redesign to eliminate the top friends, comment section and a lot of other things. In fact, where I have seen the most difference in the way people utilize their profiles is among the twenty-something crowd.

Now one person is not the whole world. But the example of my sister is relevant to me because her trend in using social networking sites is supported by recent statistics about the growth of Facebook since the developer's platform was released. Of course non-college bound teens would have not known anything about Facebook a year ago...that is a big 'duh'. But that has changed. And the developer's platform has given everyone some interesting things to play with that have made it desirable to many different groups...especially those who formerly loved MySpace and found Facebook useless because there was nothing to do. On this topic, I am still very confused as to why Boyd has not addressed what the developer's platform has done for Facebook or what the numbers concerning Facebook's growth mean in relationship to her ideas. I think that is a BIG oversight.

In addition, I still found no evidence or discussion to support her original claims that Facebook is 'seen' as a place for 'good kids' while MySpace is not. This, to me, was a point in her original essay that I wanted more clarification and proof of because the idea of perception is an interesting one. The fact that she readily admits in this essay that kids have profiles on both seems to refute this point. And the fact that certain teenagers somewhere don't know about Facebook or don't want to use it, to me, does not automatically mean that it is SEEN as a place for 'the good kids' or that teenagers anywhere are even looking at it that way. Anyone who remembers being a teenager knows that the culture leads teens (whether they claim to be against the mainstream or not) to flock to the newest coolest thing, whatever that means to their particular group of friends. If its not Facebook it will be something else. I personally believe that MySpace, between the spam, operational problems and lack of utility is losing its cool for everyone. And despite what you may believe about this silly MSNBC article that Boyd references in her response, the writer's point concerning adults on MySpace is completely true. I have seen many a person's mom on there. It has become a catch-all place...how does that affect an accurate assessment of class divisions? Another point that Boyd never really addressed.

In closing, I am sure that many people were careless in reading Boyd's essay and simply honed in on certain points for their own self-interest, I read some of them. But I don't think it is ever acceptable to refute criticism by saying that you hope readers will be less careless in the future simply because they discuss and/or refute your ideas or findings. Without concrete numbers, clearly articulated studies and research that is verifiable, thats what people are going to do, based on their own, however inaccurate, observations. People will actually do it anyway, but casual thoughts or ideas encourage that kind of analysis more so. Bottom line is, this topic is interesting and something that should be looked into further, which is why its important that Boyd raised the topic. But she shouldn't have been so quick to discredit her opponents and her overall response didn't change my mind at all about what I was thinking in the first place. Which is often the way it is. Its hard enough to change people's minds when you have verifiable evidence. When its just ideas...good luck!